Feedback Policies for Spam Fort Battles

Artem124

Well-Known Member
lol cvr mustve really complained to you guys about this..
before even these rules came out.. battles got pushed and removed when dug
 

Dubjean

Well-Known Member
Artem124 said:
lol cvr mustve really complained to you guys about this..
before even these rules came out.. battles got pushed and removed when dug
Click to expand...
Just because CO has been complaining for years and nothing was done doesn't mean that this policy was implemented now because you've been digging a lot recently. :D
 
asdf124

asdf124

Well-Known Member
Kidd Kalypso said:
wow......y'all actually do something that is not a problem.........spam battles? Perhaps fix some other issues first.
Click to expand...
The funniest thing is they have achievements that are not attainable without spamming battles.

Inno makes a game feature, decides to make achievements that aren't attainable(in a timely manner) if you don't spam battles.

I for one don't care about achievements, nor quests. But its the same thing. So we can get banned if we try to do 12 battles with 2 hour gaps frame?

It might be fine if its a dead world?

What happens if you simply attend each fort fight as you have dug em?

So now your pushing players to buy nuggets for your eirie gear that can be taken from spamming fort fights?!
 

DeletedUser15368

Isn't this basically just the policy that's existed on .net for ages now, used sparingly and when deemed necessary by the team? The Pumpkin Rule, if you know what I mean.

There's been issues on Fort Worlds on other servers lately, and now the policy we've used to combat multi-battles is being adopted on all the markets, that's all this is about as far as I can see. We do have the privilege, I guess, of having a decent team that won't abuse that, and only apply it when it's relevant to the purposeful disruption of organised fort battles, with no intention to participate, which also seems to be built-in to the policy. There's even provisions for what could be argued are "strategic multis", it's actually a pretty good policy imo.

asdf124 said:
Inno makes a game feature, decides to make achievements that aren't attainable(in a timely manner) if you don't spam battles.

I for one don't care about achievements, nor quests. But its the same thing. So we can get banned if we try to do 12 battles with 2 hour gaps frame?
Click to expand...
It could be argued under the mitigating factors clauses, that if enough players agree to "fort participation battles" - multiple, decently-attended, battles per day with no guaranteed outcome to keep competitiveness, is in no way interfering with the gameplay of others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
asdf124

asdf124

Well-Known Member
lulumcnoob said:
It could be argued under the mitigating factors clauses, that if enough players agree to "fort participation battles" - multiple, decently-attended, battles per day with no guaranteed outcome to keep competitiveness, is in no way interfering with the gameplay of others.
Click to expand...
There is a third option for people who multi dig, its to gain exp, but this is by far the most unlikely outcome.(Most players wouldn't even think about using exp gear) even thought theoritically you can gain about 50k exp per battle with exp gear.

I for one don't think these rules should apply to a world where they are only digging awesomia or a world that only 1 side digs.

I have seen a few fort fights that were cancelled before these rules were publicized in Arizona,
 
WhyN0t

WhyN0t

Well-Known Member
It is impossible to regulate fort attacks as long as they are managed by players. Just block the attacks and let an admin to attack 1-2 forts per day with restrictions, 1-2 alliances per attack, 1-2 alliances per defense one day, the other day vice versa, otherwise it's futile.

I have discovered many loopholes in this rulebook, but for now I would like to present one and I really want to get a response from you:

What do you do in the situation when someone intentionally and maliciously attacks small fort in prime time (for example 9 PM) considering that there are over 150 players that would send daily to fort battle. Over 60 players are left outside with traitor/reservist rank and have no way to attack because they would have to wait 3 hours, and a fort that starts at midnight ends around 1 and is way too late for most players. What do you do in this situation? How do you stop them? One side can try to attack earlier, but the other side will also attack earlier and so on.
 
Syntex

Syntex

The West Team
Community Manager
asdf124 said:
The funniest thing is they have achievements that are not attainable without spamming battles.

Inno makes a game feature, decides to make achievements that aren't attainable(in a timely manner) if you don't spam battles.

I for one don't care about achievements, nor quests. But its the same thing. So we can get banned if we try to do 12 battles with 2 hour gaps frame?

It might be fine if its a dead world?

What happens if you simply attend each fort fight as you have dug em?

So now your pushing players to buy nuggets for your eirie gear that can be taken from spamming fort fights?!
Click to expand...

These policies is to prevent those battles declaration, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others. I do not say that you will get banned for declaring 12 battles once, but if you do it every day, then very likely. It very much depends on the circumstances.

lulumcnoob said:
Isn't this basically just the policy that's existed on .net for ages now, used sparingly and when deemed necessary by the team? The Pumpkin Rule, if you know what I mean.

There's been issues on Fort Worlds on other servers lately, and now the policy we've used to combat multi-battles is being adopted on all the markets, that's all this is about as far as I can see. We do have the privilege, I guess, of having a decent team that won't abuse that, and only apply it when it's relevant to the purposeful disruption of organised fort battles, with no intention to participate, which also seems to be built-in to the policy. There's even provisions for what could be argued are "strategic multis", it's actually a pretty good policy imo.


It could be argued under the mitigating factors clauses, that if enough players agree to "fort participation battles" - multiple, decently-attended, battles per day with no guaranteed outcome to keep competitiveness, is in no way interfering with the gameplay of others.
Click to expand...

Yes, the FF Team has used some of these policies already to see them in practice, but as we have promised you we have come up with a transparent announcement about it, so there will be less questions about it.
WhyN0t said:
It is impossible to regulate fort attacks as long as they are managed by players. Just block the attacks and let an admin to attack 1-2 forts per day with restrictions, 1-2 alliances per attack, 1-2 alliances per defense one day, the other day vice versa, otherwise it's futile.

I have discovered many loopholes in this rulebook, but for now I would like to present one and I really want to get a response from you:

What do you do in the situation when someone intentionally and maliciously attacks small fort in prime time (for example 9 PM) considering that there are over 150 players that would send daily to fort battle. Over 60 players are left outside with traitor/reservist rank and have no way to attack because they would have to wait 3 hours, and a fort that starts at midnight ends around 1 and is way too late for most players. What do you do in this situation? How do you stop them? One side can try to attack earlier, but the other side will also attack earlier and so on.
Click to expand...

Of course there are many loopholes. But these policies aren't here to create a strict playground, they are more as a general information on what is accepted and what isn't.

ScarletKisses said:
I would love to know why some players can have two toons in same world and mods act like thats not breaking rules while others are told if they do that they will get banned?? Friends with the mods is my guess.
Click to expand...

If you suspect that someone is having a multi account please report it to us via the support system. Thank you!
 
ScarletKisses

ScarletKisses

Well-Known Member
Syntex said:
These policies is to prevent those battles declaration, not for any discernible legitimate purpose, that have as a primary effect interference with the gameplay of others. I do not say that you will get banned for declaring 12 battles once, but if you do it every day, then very likely. It very much depends on the circumstances.



Yes, the FF Team has used some of these policies already to see them in practice, but as we have promised you we have come up with a transparent announcement about it, so there will be less questions about it.


Of course there are many loopholes. But these policies aren't here to create a strict playground, they are more as a general information on what is accepted and what isn't.



If you suspect that someone is having a multi account please report it to us via the support system. Thank you!
Click to expand...
I did and mods ignored it
 
WhyN0t

WhyN0t

Well-Known Member
Syntex said:
Of course there are many loopholes. But these policies aren't here to create a strict playground, they are more as a general information on what is accepted and what isn't.
Click to expand...
I understand, but I really want to know what would you do in that situation.
 
Goober Pyle

Goober Pyle

The West Team
Fort Balancing Strategist
WhyN0t said:
I understand, but I really want to know what would you do in that situation.
Click to expand...
It depends on the specifics of the situation and The pattern of behavior.

If it is clear that the small being dug is with intent of disrupting the gameplay of others, then the other player may dig the med/large battle at the time of their choosing, and the small bottle will be moved or canceled (provided a timely ticket was filed AND a team member was able to address it in a timely manner).
 

Artem124

Well-Known Member
so in a world i play in called arizona.. one side digs only.. while other side d1cks around and wins all defense battles.. they never dig attacks
they make excuses of not digging smalls etc because it will overfill
but when i dig like 3 battles in a day they complain and report instantly
 

Dubjean

Well-Known Member
Artem124 said:
so in a world i play in called arizona.. one side digs only.. while other side d1cks around and wins all defense battles.. they never dig attacks
they make excuses of not digging smalls etc because it will overfill
but when i dig like 3 battles in a day they complain and report instantly
Click to expand...
That leaves one option... don't dig at all, let there be no fort fights and watch the world die. It's what the other side seems to want. ;)
 
iulianp

iulianp

The West Team
In-Game Supporter
The purpose of these policies is to create a pleasant playing environment for fort battles, not to prevent you from declaring battles.
They are not laws, they are just some guidelines according to which those battles can be carried out and any intentional/exaggerated deviations to be corrected, not necessarily sanctioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top